U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-02-2009, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,949 posts, read 13,969,369 times
Reputation: 3461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by organick View Post
I suppose all the peole attending the tea party dont care about how huge corporations already control us? How 5% of our country controls 95% of thw wealth and pay taxes at a lower rate?
That is actually complete nonsense. But hey, don't believe me. Ask the IRS. Here's an interesting article and a handy chart, all taken from IRS figures:

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes --The American, A Magazine of Ideas

Yep -- the "rich" (defined as the top 1% of income-earners) pay 37% of all tax collected, and the "well off" (the top 25% of income earners) pay 85% of all taxes collected. Whereas the "poor" (defined as the bottom 50% of income-earners) pay only 3%. That's right -- HALF the people pay only 3 PERCENT of the total taxes. What's this about who pays at a lower rate?

As to corporate taxes -- businesses do not ultimately pay those taxes you'd like to levy on them. Tax on business is an expense, which must be passed on to customers if the business is to survive (as to the notion that business can just eat it, no business can routinely absorb more costs than its profit margin, and STAY in business). So either prices go up, or wages go down (in practical terms, this means jobs go overseas), to cover the difference. Hence in the end, the customer, ie. individual taxpayers, pay ALL taxes that are levied on business.

Given that gov't overhead uses up about 70% of all tax dollars, I'd guess that if business taxes went away entirely, our total cost of living would drop by about double the amount that businesses currently pay in taxes -- and businesses would make more money, of which HALF typically goes into expansion and HIRING of new employees. Everyone wins. (Remember, most businesses are NOT megacorps. Most businesses are mom-and-pop outfits that are barely making it -- the same "common people" that you liberals claim to represent.)

Well, maybe the gov't doesn't win... But the gov't needs to be cured of the notion that we are just wallets to be emptied, and that won't happen so long as the gov't sees "more taxes" as the solution to its every financial problem.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 11-03-2009, 01:06 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,949 posts, read 13,969,369 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by organick View Post
Here is another Lie. I can keep posting them if you have the time to read alot of lies. Just let me know I would be glad to.
Um... here's another question: how do readers know that this news source (yourself, and by extension your news feeds) are not lying? How do you yourself know that your feeds didn't lie? (In case someone has a hypersensitive streak, note that I am NOT calling you a liar; I'm asking how we know ANY news source is being truthful, including with news about other news outlets. For today's discussion, your post functions as a "news outlet".)

If you weren't on the spot as an eyewitness, all you can do is decide which sources seem reasonable to you, thus which ones you want to believe. You may be right -- or you may not. Maybe the source you trusted was just a better liar than the rest.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-03-2009, 07:22 AM
 
2,087 posts, read 1,607,108 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Firstoff -- If you're going to twist my words, I'm not going to discuss anything with you.

ALL news outlets bend, fold, staple, and mutilate the news to a greater or lesser degree, depending on their particular slant and their goal of the day. Fox is unusual only in that it tends to slant to the right, while all the rest tend to slant to the left. I'm sure anyone who keeps track could come up with hundreds of "lies" from EVERY news outlet. Furthermore, few (perhaps none) actually investigate their sources (tho they often happily investigate someone else's sources, because every competitor you discredit is that many more eyeballs for yourself).

And I expect that likewise, some of the left-leaning news outlets have pundits who are on the payroll of the DNC, or ACORN, or any number of other political organizations. How is this unusual in the news industry, all the way back to the earliest newspapers??

Remember the dudes who pulled the "crop circles" wool over the world's eyes for two decades? They also managed to get every major news voice to air totally BOGUS stories -- and found it was damned simple to do, because news outlets are NOT looking for truth. They are looking for something to attract eyeballs, which in turn are sold to their advertisers. YOU, the viewer, are the product that news outfits SELL. The more viewers, the more profit, and truth very rapidly takes a back seat to the realities of making money from the advertising industry.

Sure, Fox lies -- by omission, by exaggeration, by taking out of context, by innuendo, by misrepresentation. So does everyone else. Your 'evidence' against Fox is NOT evidence that everyone else is honest, or even that they are more honest than Fox. Some may be; most probably are not. And often it's not even a "lie"; it's blindly replicating a feed while failing to investigate its sources for themselves. (Which is a problem both of budget, and the eagerness of reporters for a "scoop" at any cost -- if you're going to be first to report, you don't have time to investigate.)

The problem isn't that news outfits lie -- that's as old as the original news source, gossip over the back fence. The problem is that we're so eager to believe the ones that agree with what we want to hear -- and call all the others liars.

===========

My personal favourite example of twisted news, meant to shock and thereby gain salable eyeballs: Some years ago a passenger jet crashed. Most news outlets correctly pointed out that "The DC-whatever has had only N-crashes in its entire history." But a station that promotes itself as the go-to place for news reported it this way: "The DC-whatever has a HISTORY OF CRASHES!!"


there is well documented evidence that fox lies at a much higher rate than other news outlets. You can look it up. As for the on the payroll issue, I believe you are wrong. Fox is basically a representative of the right wing. Sure there are opinion shows on all channels but fox lies on their "news" shows. Have you ever looked up the connections between fox and big corps, and the rep. party? Its quite obvious fox is on the payroll. Other channels admit they have opinion shows, fox tries to represent their opinion as fact. Again you can find this info a ton of places. Its quite easy to verify whether stories have any real validity or not. I dont just believe anything I hear.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-03-2009, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,949 posts, read 13,969,369 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by organick View Post
there is well documented evidence that fox lies at a much higher rate than other news outlets. You can look it up. As for the on the payroll issue, I believe you are wrong. Fox is basically a representative of the right wing. Sure there are opinion shows on all channels but fox lies on their "news" shows. Have you ever looked up the connections between fox and big corps, and the rep. party? Its quite obvious fox is on the payroll. Other channels admit they have opinion shows, fox tries to represent their opinion as fact. Again you can find this info a ton of places. Its quite easy to verify whether stories have any real validity or not. I dont just believe anything I hear.
Oh, so now it's "obvious". And there are no connections between the left-leaning news and anything outside themselves, eh? That's a laugh. Look at their campaign contributions for a start. And they are ALL "big corps" -- so does Fox News control all the rest too, just because they are all "big corps"??

Follow The Money | Industry Influence
TV / Movies / Music: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets
(note that most of the time, the majority of campaign contributions from big media, which includes all the major news outlets, goes primarily to Democrats. Now, why do you think that might be, hmmmm??)

As to what's marketed as opinion, Dan Rather became infamous for presenting his personal agenda as "fact". Time Magazine has done so as well, to my certain knowledge. The entire news and media industry has slid that way, tho it's hardly a new problem -- hell, look at newspapers. They all pretty much reflect the leanings of their owners. You can't even get a pro-conservative piece published in some of them, whether opinion or fact; they are THAT slanted.

Methinks the reality is that the other news outlets' opinions-presented-as-fact agree with your own leanings, but when Fox does the same, you disagree with it, therefore what they do is somehow more evil than when the others do the exact same thing. This is self-blinding behaviour.

They are ALL in the business of collecting and selling your eyeballs, and none of them give a damn about truth, so long as what they present is attractive to a large enough segment to give them a good profit margin when they sell you to their advertisers.

What's really funny is that the smaller "independent" news outlets, the very ones that love to dig up dirt on the big boys (much akin to what you posted) tend to be the most radically slanted (left OR right) probably because there's no real check on their behaviour -- they don't have that mass market in the first place, so they cater to the fringes.

You are right that we should not blindly trust any of them. BUT -- we should also not blindly trust those who tell us that one side or another is full of BS.

Remember that just because one outfit is a liar does NOT make the others truthful. If anything, it should caution you that if one of that size is getting away with it, THE REST ARE TOO.

As an exercise in investigative reporting, I challenge you to find ten lies from each major news outlet. It shouldn't be hard, if you're really into digging up truth, not just "truths" that agree with your viewpoint.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-03-2009, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,949 posts, read 13,969,369 times
Reputation: 3461
I'm reminded of the old saw:

There are four sides to every story:
My side,
Your side,
The truth,
And what really happened.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-03-2009, 10:40 AM
 
2,087 posts, read 1,607,108 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Yep -- the "rich" (defined as the top 1% of income-earners) pay 37% of all tax collected, and the "well off" (the top 25% of income earners) pay 85% of all taxes collected. Whereas the "poor" (defined as the bottom 50% of income-earners) pay only 3%. That's right -- HALF the people pay only 3 PERCENT of the total taxes. What's this about who pays at a lower rate?

As to corporate taxes -- businesses do not ultimately pay those taxes you'd like to levy on them. Tax on business is an expense, which must be passed on to customers if the business is to survive (as to the notion that business can just eat it, no business can routinely absorb more costs than its profit margin, and STAY in business). So either prices go up, or wages go down (in practical terms, this means jobs go overseas), to cover the difference. Hence in the end, the customer, ie. individual taxpayers, pay ALL taxes that are levied on business.



first off maybe you don understand "rates" even if the top 25% pay 85% of the taxes ( which I am not sure thats true) they control more than 25% of the money so its still not equal percentages. A normal person pays 20-30% taxes on there money but people making alot of money do not. Money that earns money is limited to 15% max, you only pay certain taxes on you first 90,000 etc etc etc. there are tons of loop holes for the rich. Not to mention the huge tax breaks that bush gave to the upper echelon. Even your numbers don't equal tax equality.


Secondly huge corporations do not send jobs over seas because of taxes they send them because of cheap a** labor.

You everyman for himself attitude makes for a pretty un-american country don't you think??
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-03-2009, 10:49 AM
 
2,087 posts, read 1,607,108 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Um... here's another question: how do readers know that this news source (yourself, and by extension your news feeds) are not lying? How do you yourself know that your feeds didn't lie? (In case someone has a hypersensitive streak, note that I am NOT calling you a liar; I'm asking how we know ANY news source is being truthful, including with news about other news outlets. For today's discussion, your post functions as a "news outlet".)

If you weren't on the spot as an eyewitness, all you can do is decide which sources seem reasonable to you, thus which ones you want to believe. You may be right -- or you may not. Maybe the source you trusted was just a better liar than the rest.


you can verify everyone of them through multiple sources, not everything is a matter of opinion. There is video tape of some things i listed as proof, there is documented evidence on others. There are news sources that simply supply facts.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-03-2009, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,949 posts, read 13,969,369 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by organick View Post
first off maybe you don understand "rates" even if the top 25% pay 85% of the taxes ( which I am not sure thats true) they control more than 25% of the money so its still not equal percentages. A normal person pays 20-30% taxes on there money but people making alot of money do not. Money that earns money is limited to 15% max,
Well then, I guess you just called the IRS a liar.

Most of that big money rich folks have isn't locked away in a safe. It's out there working -- funding business, paying wages, paying for R&D that leads to new projects that in turn lead to expansion, more jobs, and more wages paid. It's buying stuff that by being sold makes profits for other businesses which in turn keeps their people employed.

The vast majority (around 90%) of "money that earns money" (stocks, bonds, etc.) is held by small investors -- people like you and me. We already paid tax on that money when we earned it the first time, and now that we've invested it, we pay tax again if it earns anything -- both income tax every year, AND capital gains tax when we cash it out. Taxes eat about half of every investment dollar, one way or another, either by reduced potential or reduced net.

It takes roughly a million dollars in net investment returns to retire now -- remember you've got to live on that for 20 to 40 years (and counting on SocSec or a pension plan to be there and to keep up with inflation is lunacy). That million dollars spread over 20 years is only $50k/year. Over 40 years (not so unlikely with today's improved longevity) it's only $25k/year, which is actually below the poverty line in some states (including CA). Tax it at a high rate, and you throw a whole class of small investors, who relied on it for their retirement, into poverty.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-03-2009, 11:19 AM
 
2,087 posts, read 1,607,108 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Oh, so now it's "obvious". And there are no connections between the left-leaning news and anything outside themselves, eh? That's a laugh. Look at their campaign contributions for a start. And they are ALL "big corps" -- so does Fox News control all the rest too, just because they are all "big corps"??

Follow The Money | Industry Influence
TV / Movies / Music: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets
(note that most of the time, the majority of campaign contributions from big media, which includes all the major news outlets, goes primarily to Democrats. Now, why do you think that might be, hmmmm??)

As to what's marketed as opinion, Dan Rather became infamous for presenting his personal agenda as "fact". Time Magazine has done so as well, to my certain knowledge. The entire news and media industry has slid that way, tho it's hardly a new problem -- hell, look at newspapers. They all pretty much reflect the leanings of their owners. You can't even get a pro-conservative piece published in some of them, whether opinion or fact; they are THAT slanted.

Methinks the reality is that the other news outlets' opinions-presented-as-fact agree with your own leanings, but when Fox does the same, you disagree with it, therefore what they do is somehow more evil than when the others do the exact same thing. This is self-blinding behaviour.

They are ALL in the business of collecting and selling your eyeballs, and none of them give a damn about truth, so long as what they present is attractive to a large enough segment to give them a good profit margin when they sell you to their advertisers.

What's really funny is that the smaller "independent" news outlets, the very ones that love to dig up dirt on the big boys (much akin to what you posted) tend to be the most radically slanted (left OR right) probably because there's no real check on their behaviour -- they don't have that mass market in the first place, so they cater to the fringes.

You are right that we should not blindly trust any of them. BUT -- we should also not blindly trust those who tell us that one side or another is full of BS.

Remember that just because one outfit is a liar does NOT make the others truthful. If anything, it should caution you that if one of that size is getting away with it, THE REST ARE TOO.

As an exercise in investigative reporting, I challenge you to find ten lies from each major news outlet. It shouldn't be hard, if you're really into digging up truth, not just "truths" that agree with your viewpoint.


the graph you posted showed a less than 5% difference and that includes ALL media related contributions. Really says nothing of factual importance.

You continue to try to make this about my personal leanings and that has nothing to do with it. The idea of a liberal controlled media is ludicrous. Ever heard of Rupert Murdoch? 90% of all media is owned by conservative owners such as RM.


Again it is not blind trust, if i were to follow your concept of everything out there is a lie than lets just make up whatever we want to and believe that, oh wait we do with our kenyan born pres. and healthcare that will kill grandma when she gets old. If the media is so liberal why then are Rush, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck all millionaires???


The laugh of the whole thing is that financially poor republicans believe the lies they spread and continuously shoot themselves in the foot by voting against or oppossing things that would help them and their families.

Not all media is for profit, just FYI. Ever heard of NPR?

How Public Is Public Radio?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-03-2009, 11:38 AM
 
2,087 posts, read 1,607,108 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Well then, I guess you just called the IRS a liar.

Most of that big money rich folks have isn't locked away in a safe. It's out there working -- funding business, paying wages, paying for R&D that leads to new projects that in turn lead to expansion, more jobs, and more wages paid. It's buying stuff that by being sold makes profits for other businesses which in turn keeps their people employed.

The vast majority (around 90%) of "money that earns money" (stocks, bonds, etc.) is held by small investors -- people like you and me. We already paid tax on that money when we earned it the first time, and now that we've invested it, we pay tax again if it earns anything -- both income tax every year, AND capital gains tax when we cash it out. Taxes eat about half of every investment dollar, one way or another, either by reduced potential or reduced net.

It takes roughly a million dollars in net investment returns to retire now -- remember you've got to live on that for 20 to 40 years (and counting on SocSec or a pension plan to be there and to keep up with inflation is lunacy). That million dollars spread over 20 years is only $50k/year. Over 40 years (not so unlikely with today's improved longevity) it's only $25k/year, which is actually below the poverty line in some states (including CA). Tax it at a high rate, and you throw a whole class of small investors, who relied on it for their retirement, into poverty.


First off the idea of a rate is a percentage and yes people earning 50 million pay a lower percentage than people making 100,000. Very simple.


Secondly I hate to break it to you but all that money that is out there "working" is investments. Its not there because they want to help america its there because its more secure and more profitable than the stock market. Its still money making money.


Dont know where your numbers come from but there is no one out there suggesting that the CA poverty level is 50k a year, NO ONE. The federal is less than half that for a family of 4. Not to many people with 2 financially dependent kids are retiring last time I checked.

Also if your idea of life expectancy increasing to 100 + plus years is right than should not people be working past the age of 62?
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:15 AM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top